Allahabad High Court
Lal Bahadur Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80017
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44677 of 2023
Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding, charge sheet dated 10.02.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 21.10.2019 in Case No. 8933 of 2019 (State Vs. Lal Bahadur Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 431 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Sections 3/57/7 U.P. Mines & Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, Section 4/21 Mines & Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present case arises out of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The State case is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Phool Chandra and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23537 of 2023). The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:-
"Having examined the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that when there is a conflict between a special and general law, indisputably the special enactment shall prevail over the general law, therefore, on account of categorical bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act 1957, the police officer cannot submit police report under Section 173 Cr.PC with regard to offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
The issue in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the matter of [State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Sanjay], (2014) 9 SCC 772 as well as by this Court in the case of Imran and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 3 All LJ 21.
In the light of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the opinion that so far as cognizance taken by the Magistrate concerned on impugned charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is concerned, it cannot said to be illegal and without authority but so far as cognizance taken for the offence under Sections 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act on the impugned charge-sheet dated 01.04.2018 is concerned, the same is not liable to be sustained in the eyes of law on account of categorical bar contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act."
4. Sri Anil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law laid down in Phool Chandra (supra). He has also drawn attention of this Court in Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019, arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 10707 of 2019 where the offences are distinct then those offences which are cognizable by the court as a State case in that respect the cognizance can be taken.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act can be proceeded as a State case. He further submits that so far as offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is concerned, the same is required to be proceeded with as a complaint case.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is hereby provided that the proceedings of Case No. 8933 of 2019 (State Vs. Lal Bahadur Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 431 of 2018 with regard to offence under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 3/57/7 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is hereby quashed with liberty to the prosecution/officer concerned to file complaint against the applicant in the aforesaid Act and Rules. So far as the other offences are concerned, the court concerned may proceed with the State case in accordance with law in pursuance to the charge sheet.
7. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
VMA
